THORNTON against ROBINSON AND HOWARD

No. 2. THORNTON against ROBINSON AND HOWARD. Franklin, 1819. IN an action on Jan bond, against the bail, the certificate of a Judge and Justice,, that the principal ought to be discharged, having taken the poor debtor’s oath, is conclusive and constitutes a good defence. THIS was an action on a Jail bond, and the plaintiff was a resident of Burlington, in this State. Plea — That Ephraim Robinson, the principal, was discharge ed, under the Act relating to .Jails and Jailers, and for the relief of persons imprisoned therein ; the proceedings of the Justices were set forth, in the plea, and it appeared the citation was served, by leaving a true and attested copy, in the brands of the plaintiff’s attorney, Alvan Foote, Esq. at his office, in Burlington, because the said Ariel Thornton was not to be found. The certificates were regular. For the plaintiff, Farrand contended: That a Court of Jail delivery cannot act, except its process be regular; in this case, the citation ought to have been served on Thornton, personally, and the citation not being so served, the certificates cannot avail the defendants. Contra. Mdis : That the proceedings were regular, and that the certificates of the Court, that Robinson was legally discharged, are conclusive. 3 Cranch 302. [MAJORITY — By the Court.] By the Court. The certificates of the Justices are conclusive, in an action against the Sheriff, or on the Jail bond, against thie bail. Judgment — That the plea is sufficient. See 2 Tyler 221, 358. Chip. Rep. 14.